20 years of International HR, 17 years of Faculty at Solvay Brussels School of Economics & Management, 8 years of Entrepreneurship in HRtech. 

Reggy-Charles Degen

Il y a 30 ans, j'ai vu un problème RH dont personne ne parlait.

La semaine dernière, 300 personnes m'ont prouvé que je n'étais pas le seul.

Quand j'ai commencé ma carrière en RH, un constat m'obsédait.

- La finance avait son P&L.
- Le marketing avait son funnel.
- Et les RH ? Rien.

Pas de socle. Pas de langage commun. Chaque entreprise réinventait la roue. Chaque manager avait sa propre définition d’une bonne performance, du potentiel.

J'ai passé 30 ans à construire la réponse : le People Model Canvas.

Alexis Eve m'a invité dans son podcast pour en parler. Après notre échange, il a écrit un post.

Plus de 300 commentaires.

Ce n'est pas la validation personnelle qui me touche. C'est ce que ces 300 réactions disent de notre profession :

- les RH en ont assez de naviguer à vue
- il est temps d'avoir des outils à la hauteur
- et oui, les RH méritent leur propre framework

Merci Alexis d'avoir partagé cette conviction avec ta communauté. Et merci à chacun d'entre vous qui a réagi, commenté, téléchargé.

📘 Le livre est en libre accès ici : https://bit.ly/46eXXjJ

Founder of Q7Leader | Author of the People Model Canvas | Human Resources Professor at Solvay Business School

I have spent 30 years working with job classification systems. I know what they can do. I also know that most organisations are about to completely misuse them in the name of pay transparency.

With the European Pay Transparency Directive on the horizon, the reflex I see everywhere is the same:

1. Launch a large-scale project
2. Bring in a major grading provider
3. Classify every role
4. Open social negotiations
5. Deploy a complex methodology

It feels like the responsible thing to do...

But I have watched this scenario unfold too many times not to say something.

Job classification systems are serious, well-built technical instruments. Korn Ferry, Mercer, Willis Towers Watson have developed robust methodologies over decades, and I respect the rigour behind them.

The problem is not the tools.
The problem is where organisations put them.

These systems were designed for Reward and Benefits specialists. They were never meant to be the centrepiece of a conversation between a manager and an employee about the substance of a role. Yet that is exactly what happens.

The moment you introduce grading into a managerial discussion, people stop talking about responsibilities, autonomy and impact. They start comparing grades. They start comparing themselves to colleagues. The tool that was supposed to create objectivity ends up fuelling frustration and mistrust.

I have seen this pattern in dozens of organisations over three decades. It is remarkably consistent.

The alternative is not to abandon classification.
↳ It is to reposition it.

Begin with a structured conversation about what the role actually requires. Clarify expectations first, in terms that managers and employees genuinely understand. In our experience, 95% align in the first discussion. From there, an HR specialist can match the role to the appropriate benchmark code in the background, without involving anyone else in the technical complexity.

The European directive does not demand that every organisation master the inner workings of a grading system. It demands clarity about roles and fair pay. Those are not the same thing, and confusing them is where the real cost lies.

Last week, Daan De Wever posted something on LinkedIn that I can't stop thinking about.

He runs Dstny: 10+ acquisitions, 7 countries, and over 5 million users.

Yet, he said the hardest part was never the tech.

It was figuring out the people.

Ask 5 managers to assess the same employee. 
You'll get 5 different answers. 

That's not talent management. That's guesswork.

That's exactly why I built the People Model Canvas it their anchor platform for people management. Same way they pick platforms for finance or CRM.

Suddenly someone in Sweden can read a profile from Belgium and actually get it.

You have a P&L for finance.
You have a pipeline for sales.
↳ What do you have for your people?

Jack walked into the interview, and I watched the CEO fall in love.

Market positioning. Channel strategy. A 24-month roadmap so polished it could have been framed. The CEO told me afterwards: "This is the one."

He paid above budget. Felt good about it.

Month 3 - Jack is building frameworks and slide decks. Pipeline is quiet.

Month 6 - Pipeline is dead. Jack is still "laying foundations." The CEO's best clients are calling HIM because nobody else picks up the phone.

Month 9 - Jack is gone. The year's P&L is wrecked. And the CEO? Back on the road, selling. Doing the job he hired Jack to do.

I've watched this same movie three times. Always companies between 40 and 100 people. Always 3 to 4 million in revenue. Always the same casting error.

Jack was a policy-level mind. The type who designs commercial strategy for a 500-person organization. Brilliant. But this company didn't need a strategist. It needed someone who wakes up thinking about closing deals.

The CEO didn't hire wrong.
He hired the person who impressed him.
That's not the same thing as the person the job needed.

If he'd profiled the role before the first interview, Jack would have self-selected out. No wrecked year. No one brilliant sitting in the wrong chair.

What do you think?

Two hours ago, I heard this story.

A senior manager at a major French consulting firm. Director level. Manages managers. She's been told she's underperforming.

Her words: "𝘚𝘵𝘰𝘱 𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘮𝘦. 𝘐 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘥 𝘵𝘦𝘢𝘮𝘴."

Her boss: "𝘐𝘧 𝘐 𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘱 𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘤𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶, 𝘯𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘨𝘦𝘵𝘴 𝘥𝘰𝘯𝘦."

Pick a side. Go ahead.

Now let me tell you what's actually happening.

Two competent people. Trapped in a loop neither can break. Not because someone is failing. Because they never sat down and agreed on what her role actually demands.

She's operating from her version of the job. He's judging her against his. Neither version was ever spoken out loud, let alone written down.

I've seen this exact pattern for 30 years. It always gets dressed up as a people problem. A personality clash. A leadership gap. It's none of those things.

It's a missing conversation.

When someone brings me a case like this, I do something very simple. We profile the role together. 11 dimensions, normalised. What level of autonomy does this role need? What's the real decision-making scope? We map it out. Takes about an hour.

(How? By using the People Model Canvas of course 😉)

And the argument just... dissolves. Because for the first time, both people are looking at the same page.

That director and her boss don't need mediation. They don't need a coach. They need one hour of honest alignment.

Funny how the hardest conflicts have the simplest fixes. When you finally ask the right question.

Agree? Disagree?

Quand un client vous cite 4 fois comme un élément de succès de sa politique HR, vous savez pourquoi vous vous levez le matin 😉

Exciting news : èggo nommé aux HR Excellence Awards 2026 ! 🚀

Nous sommes fiers d’annoncer qu’èggo est nommé aux HR Excellence Awards 2026 dans la catégorie Best Employer Organizations.

Les HR Excellence Awards 2026 mettent en avant les organisations qui osent repenser le travail en plaçant l’humain, l’innovation et l’impact durable au cœur de leur stratégie.

Une nomination qui salue l’audace de nos initiatives RH et l’engagement de nos équipes 🔥✨

📅 Verdict le 17 mars 2026, stay tuned !

-----

Spannend nieuws: èggo genomineerd voor de HR Excellence Awards 2026! 🚀

We zijn trots om aan te kondigen dat èggo genomineerd is voor de HR Excellence Awards 2026 in de categorie Best Employer Organizations.

De HR Excellence Awards 2026 zetten organisaties in de schijnwerpers die het aandurven om werk opnieuw uit te vinden door mensen, innovatie en duurzame impact centraal te stellen in hun strategie.

Deze nominatie is een erkenning voor onze gedurfde HR-initiatieven en de inzet van onze teams 🔥✨

📅 De uitslag wordt bekendgemaakt op 17 maart 2026, stay tuned!

#HRExcellenceAwards #BestEmployerOrganizations #cuisinebelge #cuisineeggo

Kun jij vandaag uitleggen waarom 2 mensen in dezelfde functie een ander loon verdienen? De meeste HR-directeurs die ik spreek, kunnen dat niet... Niet omdat ze het niet willen. Maar omdat hun loonbeleid nooit gebouwd is om die vraag te beantwoorden …

En dat is precies wat de EU-richtlijn rond loontransparantie gaat afdwingen.

Ik heb 30 jaar gezien hoe bedrijven compensatie behandelen als buikgevoel in plaats van systeem. Die tijd is voorbij. Transparantie wordt de norm. De vraag is niet óf je je loonbeleid moet herdenken, maar hoe snel.

Thomas Goubau heeft daar een 5-stappenplan voor gebouwd.

Deze vrijdag deelt hij het in 45 minuten. In het Nederlands, voor de verandering 😉

📅 Vrijdag 27 februari | 45 min | Nederlands

Schrijf je hier in: https://lnkd.in/eMQzBVXZ

P.S. Dit is de enige keer dat we dit webinar in het Nederlands geven.

Job classification systems were never designed to be discussed with employees. Once they were, people stopped talking about the work and started talking about the number.

A manager sits down to discuss a role. What it involves. Where it is heading. What impact it creates.

Then someone mentions the grade.

And the conversation is gone.

Not responsibilities. Not contribution. Just whether this role is a 12 or a 13. Whether the colleague down the hall, who seems to do less, sits one level higher.

Classification was built by Reward specialists, for Reward specialists. Korn Ferry, Mercer, WTW. The methodologies are technically sound. 

I am not questioning the tools.
I am questioning where organisations put them.

What most people experience is not the carefully weighted logic behind a classification system. What they experience is a number attached to their name, compared to other numbers attached to other names. That is all. And from that moment, no amount of methodological rigour can restore the conversation to what it was supposed to be about.

The tool you introduced to guarantee fairness has become the single biggest driver of perceived unfairness.

Not because it is broken.

Because it was never meant to be the conversation.

The EU Pay Transparency Directive will force companies to prove their pay decisions are objective and fair. Most won't be able to. Not because they're unfair. Because they never built the system to prove it.

Most organisations still rely on gut feeling, informal benchmarks, and job titles that describe activities instead of expectations.

That worked when nobody asked questions.

But it stops working when employees have the legal right to ask for an explanation.

Pay transparency isn't a reporting exercise. It's a systems problem. You need gender-neutral role definitions, objective criteria for every pay decision, and a structure that makes every salary explainable. Without that, the directive isn't a compliance task. It's an exposure risk.

Thomas Goubau and employment lawyer Thierry Viérin (Osborne Clarke) are covering both sides on March 24:

• what the legal landscape looks like
• and a practical method to prepare for compliance

📆 March 24, 2026
⏰ 12:00 CET

Register here: https://lnkd.in/eVBsa8Ev

I was speaking to a room full of UK CHROs last quarter.
"How many of you have employees in the EU?"
Almost every hand went up 🙋🏻‍♂️

Then I asked: how many of you have started preparing for the EU Pay Transparency Directive?

Almost every hand went down 🙇🏻‍♂️

If you employ even ONE person in an EU member state, this directive applies to you too.

• Your EU employees can demand pay data.
• any gap must be justified, when above 5% an action plan must be published.

And here's what catches most UK leaders off guard: the burden of proof is reversed. If an employee claims pay discrimination, it's on you to prove it doesn't exist. Not the other way around.

⇒ The deadline is June 2026 (yes, this year).

I've spent 30 years pushing for objective, data-driven compensation. Not because a law required it. Because subjective pay decisions are where trust breaks down.

This directive isn't a threat.
↳ It's a chance to finally get compensation right.

But only if you understand what's required. And start now.

🖥️ We're running a 45-minute webinar for UK companies with EU employees. You'll walk out knowing exactly where you stand, what the directive requires from you, and what to prioritize before June.

Link in the comments ⬇️

J'ai rencontré un poisson volant: une data scientist qui ne travaille que sur la donnée RH.

Kane DIALLO, Data Scientist chez notre partenaire luxembourgeois MindForest, travaille EXCLUSIVEMENT sur de la data RH.

Son parcours : mathématiques appliquées, puis spécialisation en statistiques et probabilités.
C'est du lourd. Une rigueur analytique rare, appliquée aux enjeux People.

Au cœur de notre échange, une question qui depuis ne m'a pas quitté :
- Quels modèles probabilistes sont applicables aux RH pour passer des indicateurs « lagging » -comme le taux d’attrition qu’on observe après coup - vers des indicateurs « leading » qui permettent d’agir AVANT ? 
Anticiper le désengagement, les départs, les risques — avant qu’ils surviennent.

C’est ça, l’Evidence Based HR.

Des RH pilotées par les faits, pas (plus) par les intuitions.
Je me suis rappelé : « If the most important asset is People, then HR’s most important asset is People Data. »

DRH, responsables RH - posez-vous cette question :
Si la directive européenne sur la transparence salariale entre en vigueur demain, avez-vous les données pour y répondre ? Pouvez-vous les exploiter sans "bricoler un truc"?
Beaucoup d’organisations n'y sont pas. Ce n’est pas un jugement — c’est un constat.
Les bons slogans et les bonnes intentions ne suffisent plus.
Et avec l’IA qui s’impose dans tous les processus RH, la qualité de la donnée devient non-négociable.

Paradoxe ? Les données RH sont les plus sensibles de l’entreprise…
et souvent les moins bien gérées.

Mais c’est un problème qui a une solution. 💡
---
Chez Q7Leader, cette rencontre avec Kane ouvre des réflexions et des synergies qui méritent d’être approfondies.

Le chemin sera long — mais il commence par les bonnes conversations.

Celle-ci en était une. 🙏 
#EvidenceBasedHR #PeopleAnalytics #DataRH #TransparenceSalariale #Q7Leader #HRTech #LeadingIndicators #Talents Guy Kerger Sophie Koyanagi Iana Bilousova Camelia Pavel Thomas Goubau Reggy-Charles Degen Pascal Stroobant Caroline Ramade Anaïs Llopes Madison Leclef Lenka Bartuskova Anna Belan Stijn Van Loo Aleksandra Saneva Julie Mellul

University of Lausanne

professor

HEC Montréal

Visiting professor

National University of Singapore

Université de Namur

assistant

Yves Pigneur is professor at the University of Lausanne since 1984. Together with Alex Osterwalder, he invented the Business Model Canvas, Value Proposition Canvas, and Business Portfolio Map  – practical tools that are trusted by millions of business practitioners. They co-authored the international bestselling books Business Model Generation, Value Proposition Design, and recently The Invincible Company. Yves and Alex are ranked in the Thinkers50's Most Influential Management Thinkers in the world and hold the Thinkers50 Strategy Award.

taplio

The Battle

Reggy-Charles Degen

Yves Pigneur

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance ScoreReggy-Charles Degen's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

taplio

The Battle

Reggy-Charles Degen

Yves Pigneur

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance Score.css-goub6s{font-size:var(--chakra-fontSizes-md);font-weight:500;color:var(--chakra-colors-gray-600);display:block;margin-top:var(--chakra-space-1);}Reggy-Charles Degen's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

Performance ScoreReggy-Charles Degen's LinkedIn Performance